|
The Guardian article doesn't really do a good idea at all of articulating what Abp Welby is trying to do, or what the situation is like. There are different types of Churchmanship, but Churchmanship doesn't really relate directly to theology. It used to be you talked about three streams of Anglicanism (evangelical, charismatic and Catholic) which reflected theological leanings. Typically evangelicals are associated with Low Churchmanship along with charismatics while High Churchmanship tends to be associated more with Anglican Catholics. There are historic reasons for that, namely the eras in which their theological origins are found. Because of that association, people often equate Low Churchmanship with evangelicalism and High Churchmanship with Catholicity, and is further complicated by the fact that Broad Churchmanship itself really does in its modern context refer to what a number of folks here have called progressive or liberal Christianity. It tends to be associated with revisionist values and theologies. Bishops and priests who don't believe in God (and there are plenty) tend to be associated with this viewpoint. So, to take it back to what's happening here... The majority of Anglicans worldwide, and the areas where the Church is growing, are in the Global South, primarily Africa, where the dominant theologies are evangelical. In the West (essentially the UK, Australia, TEC(US), and Canada), the Anglican Church is dieing. The US looks particularly bad because of how many traditionalist Anglicans have left for continuing Churches like ACNA. The theology, if it can be called that, tends to be split quite evenly between Broad on the one hand and the traditional streams of Anglicanism on the other. The reason I express scepticism at calling what's happening in the US and Canada theology is that quite literally Bishops and Priests have justified their actions which have impaired TEC/ACC communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion through the lense of human justice issues and have literally said, "This isn't an issue of theology, it's an issue of justice" to authorize such things as the ordination of women and the extension of holy matrimony to homosexuals (in the US, it will not happen in Canada until 2016/2018, just before I'm ordained). When those types of declarations happen, the Global South pretty much steps up and says no, and we end up with impaired communion between the main Western Churches and the majority of the Anglican Communion. There are good relations at the local level between traditionalist parishes and diocese and the Global South, and there are higher level connections between the Global South and the continuing Anglican movement. But TEC and ACC in particular (the CoE is behind the times in terms of these issues, they only authorized the ordination of women as priests in the 90s compared to the 70s in Canada and the US, and as bishops only a few months ago) can't play nice when it comes to those movements, so they have excluded them from the Communion. This doubly irritates the Global South since there are official Anglican Communion agreements which have been violated by the United States and Canada on moratoriums on issues relating to homosexuality. So that causes them to go outside of Anglican Communion channels. This caused a majority of Provincial Primates to boycott Anglican Communion events, to the point where more primates were showing up to GAFCON (A realignment/continuing movement conference) events than the Anglican Consultative Council, which is one of the main bodies of the Anglican Communion. By proposing this change, essentially the Archbishop is paving the way for the Anglican Communion to continue to exist as a legitimate organization, rather than just an organization on paper. It's really hard to compare it to anything going on in any other traditions. There might be some parallels to some of the effort posting that was being done about politics in the Eastern Orthodox Church a while back. Speaking of the Orthodox, there was an interesting development recently between ACNA and the Russians. Here's one discussion primarily from the Orthodox perspective that I was listening to the other night: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/anglicans_and_orthodox It might give some insight into what's happening in the Archbishop's announcement today with respect to ACNA and promoting integration. At the end of the day, all I can say is that the practical effect will not be do encourage provinces to end communion with one another, but it will open the communion to provinces which have previously been excluded, and it will also help restore some level of confidence in the Communion among the Global South. tl:dr: If you find the churchmanship stuff confusing, ignore it because it doesn't really matter. All you really need to know is that in the 1970s the US and Canada decided to toss theology to the wind and promote the secularization of the church through the lense of justice, which led to innovations such as the ordination of women, extension of holy matrimony to same-sex couples and in the future in the United States is seeking to legitimize pre-marital sex and communion without baptism. The Global South wasn't too keen on that and it caused an impairment of relations between the conservative/traditionalist south and the west which was being led by revisionists, though the numbers fluctuate a lot diocese to diocese. In response to that, some conservatives started breaking off in the west in the realignment/continuing movement, which the south strongly supported but the west has excluded from the communion. Over the years that made the Anglican Communion lose its purpose, so the Archbishop of Canterbury has announced plans to effectively admit many of the (large) continuing movement fellowships into the communion in an effort to bring the global south (which accounts for the majority of Anglicans) to the table.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
PantlessBadger posted:in the 1970s the US and Canada decided to toss theology to the wind and promote the secularization of the church through the lense of justice, which led to innovations such as the ordination of women, this is very intellectually dishonest imo Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
You've been reading the synod documents lately, have you? Or any of the commentary of the day? Heck even the current day articulation of the ordination of women is as a matter of equality (justice) and not theology. For an excellent ACC example read the public consultation on same-sex marriage and look for any theological arguments. Less than half of the submissions have any reference to proper theology in the Anglican tradition, half the arguments are against the solemn declaration (ironic in the context of this discussion on the Anglican Communion as the solemn declaration defines our doctrinal Communion with Canterbury) and there's definitely a strong appeal to secular conceptions of justice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
PantlessBadger posted:You've been reading the synod documents lately, have you? Or any of the commentary of the day? Heck even the current day articulation of the ordination of women is as a matter of equality (justice) and not theology. For an excellent ACC example read the public consultation on same-sex marriage and look for any theological arguments. Less than half of the submissions have any reference to proper theology in the Anglican tradition, half the arguments are against the solemn declaration (ironic in the context of this discussion on the Anglican Communion as the solemn declaration defines our doctrinal Communion with Canterbury) and there's definitely a strong appeal to secular conceptions of justice. I have to disagree with your assessment of the lack of theology in talk of equality. Justice is a theological virtue, and equality is a consequence of dignity, an important concept in moral theology. I don't think it's so much that they're avoiding or sidestepping God-talk, more that in modern (post-modern?) theology, especially in some Anglican circles like the American Episcopal Church, their arguments are not to suit secular sensibilities but are informed by and responding to secular sensibilities. It isn't how I would do theology or God-talk in general, and it certainly isn't how my Faith Tradition would do it either, but this is how some religious leaders and theologians are responding to the times. Frankly, I could hear someone in the early church making similar arguments when the councils started using explicitly Hellenistic philosophy to define Dogmas of the Church like the Incarnation and the Trinity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Page 22 also had chat on non-believing church goers (somewhat understandable) and non-believer priests and bishups (wut), but then the talk to turned how Orthodox churches are the same in belief, but not in languages/traditions/practices
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
JcDent posted:non-believer priests and bishups (wut) As much as I try to live and profess that people need to live out their faith experience as they understand it, this is NOT OK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
Here's the full interview mentioned in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF5tudIqN7w
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
genola posted:Here's the full interview mentioned in the article: Thanks, will try to watch it when I have time!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:Someone who thinks that it is the same kind of fundamental change as baptism might agree with the position that women cannot be validly ordained while still thinking that in every secular situation women should be treated equally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
PantlessBadger posted:You've been reading the synod documents lately, have you? Or any of the commentary of the day? As a seminarian, I would hope that you aren't ignorant of the long scholarly heritage of socially moderate-to-progressive Christianity. The fact that you aren't criticizing them on the merits of their arguments, but instead because they didn't check your pet bureaucratic checkboxes, might be telling. The fact that you chose to question my knowledge of these same bureaucratic processes is interesting as well, and I'm curious if you truly believe that you aren't in even the tiniest way being a little Pharisaical in your framing of this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
genola posted:Here's the full interview mentioned in the article: That's a great interview. Surprisingly, Colbert even managed to sneak in what sounds to be an argument for ordination of women without calling anyone a Pharisee. Who knew that it was possible, huh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
There's a few arguments, some more persuasive than others, but the impossibility of women's ordination is something I accept because the ((Latin-rite) Catholic) Church teaches it, not because I'm intellectually convinced. But then I probably wouldn't count as someone who "[supports] women's equality in every other area" either; my point was that it's possible to be that kind of person and be opposed to ordaining women if one's reason is "women can't be ordained", and that believing that ordination 'does something' does not necessarily mean thinking "oh noes not a woman leading my services and wearing my parish's
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Why? We're all made in Christ's image. The priesthood isn't about being "made in God's image". We are all made in God's image after all. Holy Orders is a specific Sacrament given to us by Christ, who ordained baptized men and only baptized men--who in turn only ordained baptized men, who ordained baptized men, and whenever it comes up as a question in the Church, it has been consistently taught that we have an all male priesthood. And if Christ and his Apostles and the Church Fathers all don't even know who can validly receive the Sacrament, then how can we trust them on anything else? Just like grape soda and rice crackers *cannot* be used in the Holy Mass, women *cannot* offer Christ to the Father in the same Holy Mass. It doesn't make women inferior as people any more than it makes rice crackers inferior as food, the priesthood should not be something that you earn or feel entitled to based on your "worthiness". I'm a woman and I favor women's equality, I even used to be for women's ordination (in a shallow way, much more informed by my own preferences, 90s upbringing and desires than Tradition/Scripture) before I actually started to mature in my own faith. I had to put myself aside and consider what the priesthood meant and where the priesthood (and Holy Orders) in general even came from. In Protestantism it's a moot point anyway, but for Catholics/Orthodox it's not going to happen. And why would it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Aisha posted:In Protestantism it's a moot point anyway, but for Catholics/Orthodox it's not going to happen. And why would it? It's not a moot point in Protestantism, though. You might be thinking of clergy marrying, one of Luther's original reforms was allowing priests to marry, and I don't know of any Protestant denominations that require priests be celibate. Women being ordained is another matter entirely and quite divisive in modern Protestantism, as evidenced by the Anglicanism chat the last couple pages. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:It's not a moot point in Protestantism, though. You might be thinking of clergy marrying, one of Luther's original reforms was allowing priests to marry, and I don't know of any Protestant denominations that require priests be celibate. IDK, priest marrying is one of the biblical literalism things that I wouldn't mind seeing back in vogue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:There's a few arguments, some more persuasive than others, but the impossibility of women's ordination is something I accept because the ((Latin-rite) Catholic) Church teaches it, not because I'm intellectually convinced. But then I probably wouldn't count as someone who "[supports] women's equality in every other area" either; my point was that it's possible to be that kind of person and be opposed to ordaining women if one's reason is "women can't be ordained", and that believing that ordination 'does something' does not necessarily mean thinking "oh noes not a woman leading my services and wearing my parish's while your logic here is internally sound, i would like to point out that this same reasoning of "well women aren't capable of that" has been used throughout history to deny women the rights to education, employment, suffrage, political office, property ownership, et cetera. this reasoning of "well they aren't capable of that" has in the same way been used to justify slavery, murder, colonial subjugation, and other awful things toward peoples based on their skin color, ancestry, ethnicity, creed, or religion. this is important because your church has, at various times throughout its existence, sanctioned many terrible practices. if you lived during the time of the early church, you would say "i support slavery, because the church teaches it". if you lived during urban ii's reign, you would say "i believe that killing muslims to take the holy land by force guarantees forgiveness of my sins, because the church teaches it". and if you lived during the age of discovery, you might say "i believe in the military conquest of less-developed indigenous peoples (and the appropriation of their culture) in an attempt to convert them to my religion, because the church teaches it". how wonderful it is then that your church, like every church, can and does change. and it has changed not only when the pope got a holy bug up his rear end, but also at times through discussion and debate with all catholics. and this is sometimes the result of ordinary good people finding in their heart the courage to stand up and say "no" to unjust and hateful teachings. thus i find the old standby of "but my church teaches it" to be, at best, disingenuous, and at worst it is a way for good people's compliant silence to be used as justification for truly awful acts Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Aisha posted:Holy Orders is a specific Sacrament given to us by Christ, who ordained baptized men and only baptized men slow your roll, princess. jesus did not invent the concept of sacraments as christians eventually formalized them, and there is no biblical evidence that jesus did or did not baptize people based on gender or eye color or anything like that. it is solely your denomination's doctrine that claims all of these things, and saying otherwise is imo pretty disrespectful to the texts
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Aisha posted:The priesthood isn't about being "made in God's image". We are all made in God's image after all. Holy Orders is a specific Sacrament given to us by Christ, who ordained baptized men and only baptized men--who in turn only ordained baptized men, who ordained baptized men, and whenever it comes up as a question in the Church, it has been consistently taught that we have an all male priesthood. And if Christ and his Apostles and the Church Fathers all don't even know who can validly receive the Sacrament, then how can we trust them on anything else? Just like grape soda and rice crackers *cannot* be used in the Holy Mass, women *cannot* offer Christ to the Father in the same Holy Mass. It doesn't make women inferior as people any more than it makes rice crackers inferior as food, the priesthood should not be something that you earn or feel entitled to based on your "worthiness". I seem recall from my catechism that, for Roman Catholics at least, "no women priests" is a matter of policy rather than doctrine of the faith. As of a few years ago we even had a (single) female priest and a couple married priests who had come over with one or another of the small schisms that came back into communion with Rome. I wish I had a citation handy, so please excuse my lack of one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I seem recall from my catechism that, for Roman Catholics at least, "no women priests" is a matter of policy rather than doctrine of the faith. As of a few years ago we even had a (single) female priest and a couple married priests who had come over with one or another of the small schisms that came back into communion with Rome. Priests marrying was banned as a practical matter rather than a theological one. It was one of the anti-corruption measures instituted around 1000 AD (3rd Lateran Council?). Priests were beginning to amass considerable fortunes around their parishes and were in turn passing them down to their sons. Being the only educated people around, priests were becoming de facto aristocracy and rulers, which the Vatican sought to quash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Priests marrying was banned as a practical matter rather than a theological one. It was one of the anti-corruption measures instituted around 1000 AD (3rd Lateran Council?). Priests were beginning to amass considerable fortunes around their parishes and were in turn passing them down to their sons. Being the only educated people around, priests were becoming de facto aristocracy and rulers, which the Vatican sought to quash. Except we have the teaching of St. Paul and the example of the Apostles and first bishops? Celibacy was held up as an ideal from the very beginning. He who can take it let him take it and all that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Except we have the teaching of St. Paul and the example of the Apostles and first bishops? Celibacy was held up as an ideal from the very beginning. He who can take it let him take it and all that. Those may be later rationalizations for it, but not why it was instituted in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I seem recall from my catechism that, for Roman Catholics at least, "no women priests" is a matter of policy rather than doctrine of the faith. As of a few years ago we even had a (single) female priest and a couple married priests who had come over with one or another of the small schisms that came back into communion with Rome. Maybe you're confusing it with celibacy of priests, which is a matter of tradition specifically in Latin rite. Female priests are not a thing because of what Catholic Church teaches on priest's role in sacraments and especially Eucharist. There are instances of married male priest converts, but to stay priests their ordination has to be valid and in compliance with Apostolic Succession in the first place. Otherwise, they has to be ordained again, this time validly. As a woman can't be validly ordained according to Catholic teaching, when a female priest converts to Catholicism, she can be accepted only as a lay person. Here's an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWObgod886o
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Peter was married, there's no reason to assume that at least some of the other Apostles weren't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Priests marrying was banned as a practical matter rather than a theological one. It was one of the anti-corruption measures instituted around 1000 AD (3rd Lateran Council?). Priests were beginning to amass considerable fortunes around their parishes and were in turn passing them down to their sons. Being the only educated people around, priests were becoming de facto aristocracy and rulers, which the Vatican sought to quash. Wait, that's why that happened? In my Early Medieval history class, we were taught that celibacy of priests comes from the thought that married priests were less holy than unmarried monastics and that the Vatican instituted that in a theological arms race with the monasteries
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Follow the money i say. The Church as a organization had at lot to gain by preventing priests from having legitimate heirs. I honestly don`t think it ever had to do With sexual modesty. Clergymen that wanted gently caress did so and mostly got away with it so long as they were somewhat discreet. Sex was not the problem, siphoning Church Resources to support "priest-dynasties" was. To be honest the problem never did not go away. Instead of Father-Son sucession you often had Uncle-Nephew sucession instead. And who is to say which brother really fathered the new bishop? That`s between them and god. Rabbis weren`t celibate rigth? Not even in Jesus`s time. Christ was never afraid to attack sin amongs the " holy classes" so if ther non-celibacy had been a problem he would have said something. It just does not make sense to make a deal about how you are cleansing the temple and not mention Rabbi`s being allowed to breed. Unless of course it was never a problem for god or a hinderance to ministry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
I remember one of my religion professors in college saying that Jews and Muslims have always been firmly in the "be fruitful and multiply" camp. Christians are the only Abrahamic people to get mixed up in any of that hippie ascetic crap. also, you can still be a catholic priest and a dad if you had your kids before you went to seminary. its always seemed odd to me that more dudes don't take advantage of that loophole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I seem recall from my catechism that, for Roman Catholics at least, "no women priests" is a matter of policy rather than doctrine of the faith. As of a few years ago we even had a (single) female priest and a couple married priests who had come over with one or another of the small schisms that came back into communion with Rome. You are either recalling your catechism incorrectly, or your catechism was wrong to begin with. The male priesthood is very much a part of the doctrine of the faith for any Christian denomination with valid Apostolic Succession. And no, we've never had a female priest, nor is such a thing possible. Married priests are possible, and in fact the Catholic Church has had married priests in history as well as in modern times (from those who came over as well as those in Eastern Catholicism). Lutha Mahtin posted:slow your roll, princess. jesus did not invent the concept of sacraments as christians eventually formalized them, and there is no biblical evidence that jesus did or did not baptize people based on gender or eye color or anything like that. it is solely your denomination's doctrine that claims all of these things, and saying otherwise is imo pretty disrespectful to the texts Cool your jets, marquis. There's no need to defend your own version of "gender equality" with misogyny. And I apologize, my sentence was a bit oddly worded--not that he only baptized men, but that he only ordained baptized men. So an unbaptized male cannot be ordained, nor can a baptized female be ordained. And Jesus did "invent" the Sacraments, or, to use a more correct word, he instituted the Sacraments. That is what the word "Sacrament" means--a visible sign instituted by Christ to give us grace. Do you think Christ did not institute any visible signs in order to give us grace? He certainly instituted visible signs, do you think they are all just symbols and the Church formalized the grace later, or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Aisha posted:Do you think Christ did not institute any visible signs in order to give us grace? He certainly instituted visible signs, do you think they are all just symbols and the Church formalized the grace later, or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:This is a false dichotomy. I can believe that Christ instituted some visible signs without believing that every single visible sign now used by the Church was practiced by Christ in his lifetime. I think Christ very obviously instituted Mass/Communion. I see no evidence whatsoever that Christ instituted marriage (it was already there in the Jewish tradition), or ordination (ditto ditto) or, for Catholics, Viaticum (taking one last Host for the road). Christ attended the wedding at Cana; he didn't create it or, as far as we know, preside. The Church is both what Christ directly said and did and also what the Church built on that foundation. If it's Jewish tradition, then it is also Jesus because Jesus has always existed as God
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
I'm unfamiliar enough with my bible to ask: Where are the discussions of male/female priest/pastorship?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Verr posted:I'm unfamiliar enough with my bible to ask: Where are the discussions of male/female priest/pastorship? You won't find it except Judges having female rulers (Deborah?) who also acted as priests, and St. Paul saying he does not suffer women to teach in church. The rest comes from Tradition with a capital T. Look at the practice. Also, Mary was not a priest, despite all of her privileges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:If it's Jewish tradition, then it is also Jesus because Jesus has always existed as God
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Aisha posted:The priesthood isn't about being "made in God's image". We are all made in God's image after all. Holy Orders is a specific Sacrament given to us by Christ, who ordained baptized men and only baptized men--who in turn only ordained baptized men, who ordained baptized men, and whenever it comes up as a question in the Church, it has been consistently taught that we have an all male priesthood. And if Christ and his Apostles and the Church Fathers all don't even know who can validly receive the Sacrament, then how can we trust them on anything else? Just like grape soda and rice crackers *cannot* be used in the Holy Mass, women *cannot* offer Christ to the Father in the same Holy Mass. It doesn't make women inferior as people any more than it makes rice crackers inferior as food, the priesthood should not be something that you earn or feel entitled to based on your "worthiness". I can see the logic, but then only the disciples were directly given the Great Commission, and it's my understanding that Catholicism views baptisms by women valid, even if it doesn't allow them itself. Also, I feel your imposing a clarity on the Last Supper that isn't supported by the text. When Jesus says "do this in rememberance of me" is he telling the apostles to give bread and wine, or Christians to take and eatit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:I can see the logic, but then only the disciples were directly given the Great Commission, and it's my understanding that Catholicism views baptisms by women valid, even if it doesn't allow them itself. IIRC anybody can baptize, as long as they do it in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and "intend to do what the Church does". You definitely don't have to be ordained to baptize; it used to be common for hospital nurses to do a hasty baptism on babies that were dying too fast to get the priest into the room.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I remember one of my religion professors in college saying that Jews and Muslims have always been firmly in the "be fruitful and multiply" camp. Christians are the only Abrahamic people to get mixed up in any of that hippie ascetic crap. also, you can still be a catholic priest and a dad if you had your kids before you went to seminary. its always seemed odd to me that more dudes don't take advantage of that loophole. Second temple Judaism had celibate movements, such as the Essenes. There seems to be a basic human instinct to combine mysticism with celibacy. Not that I think priests should all be mystics, but I think Protestants would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to deny that some people find celibacy a useful spiritual discipline. <not getting any>
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
That implies that Protestants don't believe you should be allowed to be celibate though. I don't think any denomination except the otherwise extremely weird ones are going to complain if a pastor says "I'm celibate for spiritual reasons."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
What if they believed in infant baptism though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Aisha posted:And I apologize, my sentence was a bit oddly worded--not that he only baptized men, but that he only ordained baptized men. So an unbaptized male cannot be ordained, nor can a baptized female be ordained. And Jesus did "invent" the Sacraments, or, to use a more correct word, he instituted the Sacraments. That is what the word "Sacrament" means--a visible sign instituted by Christ to give us grace. Do you think Christ did not institute any visible signs in order to give us grace? He certainly instituted visible signs, do you think they are all just symbols and the Church formalized the grace later, or what? omg you've gotta be making GBS threads me
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
have you ever studied the history of christianity like at all
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:44
|
|